pyoung

My take on it, use what is easiest for you. Especially in your situation where it sounds like you are more of a recreational/casual programmer. Free time is a precious commodity and in your case it is probably better spent getting more familiar with python. If/when programming becomes your full time career (or passion), then it might make sense to start playing around with vim. But for what it's worth, I program for a living and I use Sublime. It works for me, and I spend an order of magnitude more time on other tasks (reasoning about code, working on infrastructure, code review, design meetings) than I do 'struggling with my text editor'. Until you really feel like your editor is holding you back, you are probably fine sticking with Atom.

It sounds like you left because you were burnt out. The fact that you were incented by larger bonuses doesn't change that. Many industries and companies use bonuses as a way to incentivize over-work (Wall St in particular) and they expect and plan for a certain percentage of employees to quit each year because of it. The fact is, the more you pay employees, the more you can demand from them. And most of the employees who quit to find a job with better work life balance aren't leaving because they got paid too much, they are leaving because they were too stressed out.

One idea for you stats page - Number of job listings over time, broken down by various attributes (programming language, location, source of post, etc...). There is a lot of talk of another dot-com bubble, and this could be another data point to argue about. I would imagine it would be a good leading indicator as well.

I am a huge fan of MOOCs. I strongly believe that these courses and this style of education will be one of the greatest by-products of the modern internet. I was a happy and eager participant in the 'early days' (I took ~2 years off of work in 2013-2014 to re-charge, and took a number of online courses for fun), and here are some of my thoughts:

- Completion rate is a very poor metric to measure the 'success' of the concept. I attempted more than a dozen courses, but only completed ~4-5 of them. But that doesn't mean I didn't learn anything. For a number of courses, I got a good way through the material (75%+) but got distracted/side tracked (in one particular case, I was 90% of the way through a very challenging and interesting course[1] when a buddy and I decided to do a last minute trip to Mexico for some camping/surfing. Needless to say, it was hard to find internet access out there). Of the courses I completed, at least two of those I had to attempt more than once. But regardless of the final outcome, I learned a ton. There were a few courses that I didn't find interesting and walked away from, but for the most part, I learned something from every course, regardless of whether I completed it or not.

- By traditional metrics, I wasn't the best student in college. There were a number of reasons for this, but a key reason was the inability to focus during lectures. I just hadn't had enough life experience to learn how to optimize my ability to pay attention in class for multiple hours a day. In high school, the class sizes were small and the teachers were engaging enough to make it easy for me. In college (big public university) there were hundreds of students in each lecture and the professors were more interested in research than they were in lectures (with a few exceptions). I now know that I need the right balance of coffee, adequate sleep, and exercise in order to be able to sit through 4+ hours of very dry lectures, but it took years of hard won experience to find that balance. MOOCs are amazing because they let you optimize the 'lecture' time to best suite your schedule and your 'optimum time of focus'. And the forums were a great, asynchronous way to share knowledge between TA's and students (as opposed to my college experience where you had 1-2 office hours per week, with a dozen+ students competing for attention). Had MOOC-like teaching material (video lectures, forums, online exercises) been available when I was in college, I have no doubt that I would have done way better.

- Considering how expensive traditional college is getting, I think a very cool and plausible alternative would be to allow students to spend a few years doing internships/apprenticeships part time, and doing nano-degrees and MOOCs part time. A company could pay for the classes, as well as a stipend/salary for the internship. I learned programming and statistics on the job (seems like it's getting more rare these days for on the job training) but being able to take a step back and take more traditional classes on Coursera helped fill in some of the knowledge gaps that had been developing over the years. I feel like mixing both practical, in demand skills and theoretical knowledge at the same time could result in a much more engaging and deep understanding of the subject matter as opposed to the traditional way of all theory in college followed by all 'hands-on' in the real world.

Anyways, a bit of rant. But it's been a while since a MOOC post has made it to the front page of HN, and it's a holiday weekend!

[1] https://www.coursera.org/learn/programming-languages Back when I took this, it was just a single course. Looks like they broke it up into 3 parts. Would have been nice to have that option when I took it!

That's neat! Regarding your temp sensor issues, I used the same sensor for beer monitoring. Not sure if is is the same issue, but I was able to resolve it[1].

[1] http://www.blog.pyoung.net/2015/01/28/ds18b20-crc-check-code...

>>> I also seemed to have an ever-increasing strength of prescription.

I have a hunch that optometrists tend to slightly overprescribe the strength. Every time I would get a new prescription, I would walk out with superhuman vision, but than after a few days my eyes would adjust. At my last visit to the optometrist, I actually requested a lower strength and they obliged. And while I might have to squint here and there to read something really far away, I spend a good chunk of my time in front of computer, so I prefer the lower strength.

And I agree on increasing your eye strength as well. I try to take off my glasses frequently, and I have noticed that if I go for a while without them, my vision seems a little better when I put them back on. Also there are some apps that help as well [1]

[1] Came across this link on HN a while back: https://github.com/Fordi/eyegame

Your assumptions on typical behavior do not match my experiences. I normally bring my own bags, and because of that, I pack the bags while the clerk scans the items (as opposed to having that person do both tasks). This greatly increases the speed to checkout. And more often than not I see the same behavior from others who also brought their own bags (and at least in SF, bringing your own is very common).

Also, I worked in retail when I was younger. Most bigger stores keep an eye on the lines and will move more employees to the checkout registers if the lines are getting too long.

They did a post-mortem and pretty much just blamed the polls[1], but didn't really go into detail about why their model spit out that number. But for what it's worth, I have a background in data analytics, and I would never create a model that returns a number in the 90's unless the forecasted results were well outside the estimated range of error. And according to 538, based on what they were seeing, a Trump victory was well within the polling errors, and the polls were off by a similar amount in the 2012 election (but in Obama's direction). They had their forecast in the 70's (and mid 60's just a few days before). Another modeling parameter that may have been a factor in the two models was the number of undecideds. Silver was also very open about how high those were, and how it was pushing up the uncertainty of the model. So it might be possible that HuffPo was ignoring those

Regardless, for something like an election where so many factors can influence an outcome (turnout, late breaking news, biased polls) and with so few previous events to base your model on (~12 elections worth of data), you should heavily discourage your model from outputting such a high number. It is irresponsible considering what kind of an impact those types of forecasts can have on voter apathy and decision making, and the only reason I can think they did it was so that they could award themselves the 'most accurate forecaster' title after the election. But instead, they now get to award themselves the 'worst forecaster award', and the rest of us are stuck with Trump for 4 years.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pollster-forecast-donald...

At least for me, it went something like this:

1. Trump says something really bad 2. Check a poll aggregator (538) 3. Breath sigh of relief

For a good chunk of the election, Hillary had a really big lead in the polls. But after the Comey incident, things got tighter[1]. Nate Silver had some really good analysis on how tight the race was (a Trump win was within the polling error, and when state level polls are off, a lot of times they are all off in the same direction). But he was getting shouted down by the other aggregators. I was pretty on edge for this part of the race, but at the end, it looked like Hillary was picking up some momentum.

I think part of it was the bubble effect, but I also think Democrats put too much faith in these forecasts.

[1] At least on 538, a bunch of the other forecasters didn't budge. HuffingtonPost had a 98% chance of Hillary winning at the end. I really hope someone holds them accountable for that, as I wouldn't be surprised if such confident forecasts contributed to voter apathy.

I think the election is the most plausible explanation. Modern American politics has turned into it's own sport, with the debates, commentary, polling, and predictive modeling, following a modern election these days feel eerily similar to following your favorite sports team (but with much higher stakes).

The biggest need for storage is to offset the intermittency of solar and wind, and to help shift peak solar generation (typically 12-2pm) to match peak demand (typically 4-8pm). Reliable and affordable storage is a prerequisite to wide scale solar and wind generation.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/californias-duck...

I did 75% time for six months. In my case I was approached by an old employer because they really needed the extra help. I originally asked for a contracting arrangement, but according to HR they couldn't do that, so we settled on the 75% (w/ benefits) arrangement. A few thoughts on the subject:

1. Everyone I know who has managed this schedule has done so by negotiating with their existing employer (in my case a former employer). Doing this at the interview stage seems a sub-optimal (unless you are really in demand) because they will probably just go with someone else. After you have been working for a while, you are a known quantity, and so it's easier for them to stick their neck out for you. If your current employer is not receptive, you can apply pressure by threatening to leave (worked for a buddy, but you have to be prepared to walk). 2. For this arrangement to make sense, you really need to be good at setting boundaries. I was pretty bad at that, and as such, I often put in more hours. Part of the reason they took me on was because they were having trouble finding people to handle all the workload, so I should have realized that it would be a struggle to keep the workload manageable on the 75% schedule (when I used to work full time I put in a lot more than 40/week). 3. For me personally, I would much rather have a (very) flexible schedule than a shorter work week. I don't mind cranking out 10-12 hour days if needed, but I like the option to get some of that time back, whether it be taking part or most of a day off on short notice, or coming in late to the office in order to enjoy the outdoors in the AM or do some chores.

Due to 2 and 3, I think an hourly consulting arrangement would have been much better (for me at least). If you charge enough, you will make up for the lost benefits, and because you are charging hourly, you don't have to stress too much if the workload spikes from time to time because you will get paid for those extra hours.

I can't quite tell what you are trying to argue, because you acknowledge that government incentives have helped, yet you seem to be claiming that the success of solar was due to free market economics.

Just to set the record straight, the solar industry would not exist without government support. Nearly every company past and present has taken grant money from the DOE, or directly benefited from cash rebates or stimulus money. Local utilities in many states are required by local regulatory agencies to buyback excess solar power at retail prices, which for many regions is the difference between hitting the break even point in a reasonable time frame. And before the ITC (tax credit) was unexpectedly extended last year, companies were preparing to downsize considerably and were warning local politicians that without an extension, there would be massive layoffs in the industry.

With battery tech starting to become viable and with continuing efficiency improvements, we are getting closer to a point where solar might be able to compete on it's own, but in it's current form, the industry is still highly dependent on subsidies and tax breaks.

The employer isn't magically immune to market forces simply because they move to a transparent salary system. If they are significantly under-paying their employees, and they are not making up the difference via other benefits (shorter working hours, bonuses, etc...) then they are going to run into a lot of trouble hiring and holding onto employees.

And just because a company has defined salary ranges doesn't mean employees have no voice in the matter. If they feel those salaries are not keeping up with market rates, they can make that known to management, or they can go find greener pastures.

Negotiations still take place, they just happen in a different format. For example if the Technical Lead is having trouble hiring due to low salaries for the positions, he would make the case to management that they need to raise the salary range for those positions. And the added benefit to this format (in a transparent organization) current employees would also get a raise which would probably help with attrition.

I think for very senior roles, individual negotiations still might make sense, as the value prop of those hires is highly variable and can have big impacts on the organization. But for roles like Software Eng I, and Software Eng II, etc... in the long run it is better for morale, attrition, and equality to use defined salary ranges. And you can still use bonuses to adjust compensation based on performance.

What Gawker did was disgusting, but what irks me about Thiel's actions is the fact that most of his wealth was created by investing in businesses that have significantly reduced consumer privacy (i.e. Facebook, Palantir, etc..). How many people have been accidentally outed due to Facebook's poor privacy practices?

Gawker is a by-product of the current ecosystem that Silicon Valley has created. The rise of click bait journalism was a by product of incentives created by social media companies like Facebook. And Thiel sits in the center of this universe. If he really wants to be 'philanthropic' he should focus his efforts at the root causes of these issues. But he won't, because that is where his net worth comes from.

So exempt primary residences from large tax hikes. The original promise of Prop 13 was to protect grandma from having to sell her home due to rising property values. But there have been some pretty bad side effects and a lot of the benefits are going to the commercial property owners and wealthy individuals and landlords.

Except for the fact that I would describe myself as a moderate. I can empathize with the desire and need for sensible tax cuts and smaller government, but I can't support a platform that is incoherent and hypocritical.

EDIT: To add a little more substance. I think the incoherence stems from the fact that the current conservative alliance is formed from approximately 3 distinct groups, with different priorities. You have the religious folks who care about abortion, same-sex marriage, drug laws, etc... And then you have the blue collar group that cares more about immigration, guns, etc.. And then you have the pro-business group which mostly cares about taxes and deregulation. From the outside looking in, it shouldn't be surprising that it's hard to empathize with the 'conservative' world view, because the external manifestations of that worldview are often very contradictory (i.e. why would a group that supports small-government also support the drug war, etc...)

Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Tax cuts marketed as economic stimulus, attacks on regulations and consumer/environmental protections marketed as 'making government more efficient', racial oppression disguised as drug/crime laws, universal health care spun as death panels, etc...

Probably the safest 'investment' you can make is to put panels on your roof (assuming your utility is supportive, barring that wait for batteries to get cheap/good). Solar stocks are a minefield at the moment (largely thanks to SunEd[1]). There are also things called yield co's which are holding companies for energy projects that largely focus on dividends. They are kinda like REITs. But it is worth mentioning that these are relatively new investment vehicles, and they still share some risk with the parent company[2]

[1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sunedison-collapse-201... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-yieldco-idUS...

Fair point. I am more into beer, so waste isn't as much of an issue (unless it's a bomber of really high ABV stuff, in which case I just wait for the weekend and/or when I am with someone to share). But I have found the TJ's boxed stuff to be pretty good and it successfully fills the 'glass of wine with dinner' need for me. I'd say stick with Whiskey!

Seems like a low tech solution to your problem is boxed wine. Trader Joe's sells some good ones for ~$12 (and they hold the equivalent of 4 bottles of wine).

http://www.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article/2762

Tesla was part of that program and without that loan they would not be around today. Also, the loans are expected to profitable [1], although I read somewhere that when accounting for administration costs, the program overall would end up slightly in the red[2]. Regardless, the program created/saved thousands of jobs and provided badly needed financing to companies during one of the worst recessions in decades, which in my book means it was very successful.

[1] http://energy.gov/lpo/portfolio [2] The bill that created the program required that the loans be given out 'at cost'. Had the DOE been allowed to charge even modestly more, or had they asked for stock options as part of their deals, the program could have been wildly profitable.

A lot of folks like to argue against BI by pointing out population*(BI $/person) = $$$$$ (really big number). The counter argument is that most people won't be netting the full BI as they would be paying it back in taxes somehow. The NIC is essentially BI, but with better visibility into where the break even point is on the income scale.

I have zero experience in this area, but regarding the price volatility, I was under the impression that a lot of the massive late-stage investment rounds had been structured more like debt. So something like 2-3x liquidity preference, with a cap on returns[1]. Not sure if this is what the hedge funds are doing, but if so, seems like they are controlling the price and taking a risk on the time horizon. Of course the fact that they are heading towards the exits (according to this article) implies it's not going as expected.

[1] http://blog.samaltman.com/the-tech-bust-of-2015

This could potentially have some positive secondary effects on the more populated areas as well. SF rent/home prices are insane, and part of the reason is due to the supply of good jobs. With less pressure to relocate to job centers, we could see an easing of demand in those areas. And this is a good counter-argument to those that claim a BI would just results in higher prices for everything.

BI could have an impact because it could relieve the pressure on job centers (SF, NYC, LA, etc...) as people wouldn't be forced to move to look for work (and I imagine plenty of folks would leave those areas as well, because they are no longer as dependent on their job as they once were). At least in the US, there are a ton of midwest and rustbelt towns that have really cheap cost of living and plenty of land, but due to lack of jobs, are in really poor shape. BI could allow for people to relocate there, and the new influx of people (and income) could lead to revitalization.

A few years back I made the mistake of allowing Anaconda to prepend it's path to .bashrc without realizing it. I was a bit of a novice back then, but I had a number of existing projects in virtualenvs on my system and was rather upset when everything stopped working because my default python had changed. For those out there that would like to test out Anaconda but already have a lot of projects using their default installation, I would recommend using this installation guide to keep things separate:

http://giusedroid.blogspot.com/2015/04/dont-let-anaconda-eat...

Looks like the car he is using already comes with adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist[1]. Can someone with more knowledge on the subject chime in on how/what he is doing that improves upon those?

[1] http://www.acura.com/Features.aspx?model=MDX&modelYear=2016&...

You are still building equity as opposed to throwing money away to a landlord. And there are a lot of other intangibles such as stability (no more rent increases or evictions) and freedom to modify/alter/improve the property. These are probably much more important features to potential home owners (especially ones considering/having children).

And another thing to consider, for most homeowners a hot real estate market only benefits them if they are willing to move to a lower priced market or downsize their home. Moving laterally or trying to upgrade during a hot market means you are exposed to the same percentage of price increases as everyone else. The only people that really benefit from hot real estate markets are investors and landlords.